read_run_file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return framing ('between a notice and markers') and a critical safety trait, that file content is model-written data rather than instructions (prompt-injection warning). It omits permissions/rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the file list and the safety caveat. The long filename parenthetical is information-dense rather than padded, though it slightly inflates length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description explains the return shape and injection-safety framing, which is what an agent most needs here. The main gap is the undocumented 'run' parameter, preventing a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema gives bare string types for 'run' and 'file'. The description compensates substantially for 'file' by enumerating valid values, but leaves 'run' (presumably a run identifier) entirely unexplained, so it only partially fills the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb+resource ('Read a file from a run folder') and enumerates the concrete artifacts available (deliverable.md, BOARD.md, run.log, report.json, etc.), which makes it instantly distinguishable from siblings like write_task, list_runs, or run_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The file enumeration effectively tells the agent what it can retrieve, and the note about report-partial.json signals a condition (spend-cap-stopped runs). However, there is no explicit when-to-use routing versus alternatives such as plan_outline or run_status, so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.